D&D General How Do You Handle Falling Damage?

[LordBP]

I think what bugs me is that of those 50% who survived the 50-foot fall IRL, I bet that not many were fully capable of functioning unimpeded immediately after. I'm sure there's a bunch of cases where the person got up and walked home with nothing but a bruise, but these are probably statistically just as numerous as those who killed themselves falling from a 6-inch sidewalk. I suspect that many who survived a 50-foor fall were basically the IRL equivalent of being at 0hp but succeeding all three death saves.

But that has a lot to do with the binary condition of D&D health: 100% functional or 100% incapacitated, which isn't an issue for me except in some situations, mainly falls and other "environmental attacks".

So, I can give a real life example of a shorter fall.

Fell 20 foot onto concrete and did a PLF luckily as I hit, so the damage wasn't that bad.

If I would have hit any other way, I wouldn't have been able to get up as several bones would have been broken.

I could walk/hobble off and it took quite a while for my knee to heal back to normal (leg is slightly shorter now).

 

[Baron Opal II]

1d6+1 damage per 10 ft. One point of that goes to Health, which are hit points that are lost after Grit (regular hp) are lost. Health is 6 + Con bonus. 0 Health = dead /dying. Fall far enough, it doesn't matter what you roll.

 

[Lanefan]

So, I can give a real life example of a shorter fall.

Fell 20 foot onto concrete and did a PLF luckily as I hit, so the damage wasn't that bad.

If I would have hit any other way, I wouldn't have been able to get up as several bones would have been broken.

I could walk/hobble off and it took quite a while for my knee to heal back to normal (leg is slightly shorter now).

PLF?

 

[LordBP]

PLF?

Sorry. Parachute Landing Fall.

 

[ezo]

Late to the thread, and I see we're already talking about physics, but here's how I do it: damage for every 10 feet fallen and no cap, just like several others have mentioned. But I roll a single die and multiply it--I don't roll dozens of dice and add them up. This makes the damage very swingy, which I narrate as good/bad luck (instead of saves or skill checks).

For a fall from a 300-foot cliff, the damage will be 1d6x30, not 30d6. So the PC has a 1-in-6 chance of taking only 30 damage, and equal odds of taking 180 damage. If I roll low damage, they got lucky and something broke their fall... if I roll max, they had a really bad landing.

Yonk!

Stolen.

In fact, I might do that for everything. Fireball? 8d6? Nope. 1d6 x 8? Yep!

I think what bugs me is that of those 50% who survived the 50-foot fall IRL, I bet that not many were fully capable of functioning unimpeded immediately after. I'm sure there's a bunch of cases where the person got up and walked home with nothing but a bruise, but these are probably statistically just as numerous as those who killed themselves falling from a 6-inch sidewalk. I suspect that many who survived a 50-foor fall were basically the IRL equivalent of being at 0hp but succeeding all three death saves.

Oh, most definitely! Survival is only that: survival. I am sure many of those survivors required hospital care, likely emergency care, and were not just walking about afterwards.

But that has a lot to do with the binary condition of D&D health: 100% functional or 100% incapacitated, which isn't an issue for me except in some situations, mainly falls and other "environmental attacks".

I know many people use a bloodied condition at 50% hp.

My preference would be to have more damage monitors than just hp and exhaustion. Exhaustion helps, but something like aggrevated damage from Vampire (for fire, acid, and such) would help. Targeting Constitution is also an option IMO.

1) You have noticed that 5e doesn't do that, right? The game we are talking about.
2) I have played games where an injury takes a moth to recover from. The most common "solution" found when that happened was... making a new character. Because the game in question was taking place on a day by day schedule, there were things for the PCs to do every day, and being forced into a hospital where you could do nothing for a month... essentially meant your character had to be written out of the story, because you could no participate.
3) A minotaur can be the first encounter of a mid-level area. SO, you can start the adventure, get in one fight, then be hospitalized for a month while the rest of the party... stares longingly at the adventure site they were about to get to experience?

So, I stand by my assessment. That would fundamentally change the game we are playing.

1) The point was healing can take longer, like it did before, duh!
2) Funny, that was never the case in AD&D when healing took several days, even weeks. And people use gritty variants in 5E without issue, also, so you know it is possible in the game we're discussing.
3) I don't see how that would happen, but ok, even if it was possible, adventuring is dangerous---or should be.

Okay, so? That is aggregate data. Every time an adventurer falls off a building and survives, three monsters are shoved off a cliff and die. Now that fall height has a 25% survival rate.

Just because the IRL rate of people who accidentally fall a great height means that half of them die and the majority are heavily injured does not mean that any given PC needs to die, or even think they would die.

Yeah, so what if it is aggregate data? It is about people surviving falls, not other things (animals, or in the case of D&D "monsters").

It doesn't mean that any given PC doesn't need to (have a chance anyway) to die. The solution is to include rules for infinite damage potential, however unlikely, so there is always an element of risk. If a PC has 50+ hp and falls 30 feet (max 18 damage), they ABSOULTELY KNOW death is impossible--and the player knows it, too.

Right, again, this is why to me, Lava is a different category of event. Falling is something that just happens whenever a living being is near an edge. Lava, whirlwinds, Avalanches, Earthquakes as devastating natural events that cannot be stopped by human engineering. Unlike a handrail on the edge of a surface.

That is why I am fine with uncapped damage for falling (eventually, it is deadly to everything) but for Lava... if you move into a 5ft square with Lava you are just going to die.

And that's fine for you. I prefer to let the odds determine it, even if they are heavily skewed in one direction or the other. 10d10 damage for lava is pretty decent IMO, and since it is every turn, a PC falling off of a bridge into a lava stream and having to take more than one round to escape is probably dead anyway. You want to auto-kill them, go ahead.

Of course I favor the PCs. I have infinite resources, infinite time, infinite health and can deal infinite damage... why wouldn't I favor them? The entire game exists for them and has no purpose without them.

Well, this pretty much indicates any discussion between us is fruitless. I despise this type of thinking. You might as well just give them the "We win" card and call it a day.

The DM creates a fair game and rules should be consistent across the board. If a PC can auto-kill something while it sleeps, the PCs are fair game, too. So, I don't do auto-kill scenarios. The players have to make attack rolls, determine damage, and hope it is enough to reduce their targets to 0 hp and they don't cry out for help or sound an alarm.

The game exists for the DM as well. Without the DM the players can't play either. It is silly point to bring up IMO, arguing "the entire game exists for them and has no purpose without them."

Anyway, as long as you're enjoying your game, it doesn't make a difference to me what you do. Have fun!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, I can give a real life example of a shorter fall.

Fell 20 foot onto concrete and did a PLF luckily as I hit, so the damage wasn't that bad.

If I would have hit any other way, I wouldn't have been able to get up as several bones would have been broken.

I could walk/hobble off and it took quite a while for my knee to heal back to normal (leg is slightly shorter now).

Good you know that technique. I think I will practice it while bouldering soon (on soft ground and from max 10ft.). Comes im handy when climbing down is harder than up...

And yes. The ground you hit is an important factor. The perfect landing place is a bush with soft branches... where the energy of the impact is dissipated over a longer period of time and a farther way.

 

[LordBP]

Good you know that technique. I think I will practice it while bouldering soon (on soft ground and from max 10ft.). Comes im handy when climbing down is harder than up...

And yes. The ground you hit is an important factor. The perfect landing place is a bush with soft branches... where the energy of the impact is dissipated over a longer period of time and a farther way.

I wouldn't practice it while bouldering as you never know when something will go wrong.

There are a lot of ankle injuries in Airborne school in training at heights of less than 10 feet.

 

[smetzger]

1d20 per 10 ft up to a max of 60 ft then divide by 1d6.

This gives a reason for the 15th level fighter to be concerned about a 60ft fall, but at the same time also allows for possibility of very little damage.

 

[Chaosmancer]

1) The point was healing can take longer, like it did before, duh!
2) Funny, that was never the case in AD&D when healing took several days, even weeks. And people use gritty variants in 5E without issue, also, so you know it is possible in the game we're discussing.
3) I don't see how that would happen, but ok, even if it was possible, adventuring is dangerous---or should be.

1) Sure, it could go back to how it was before they changed it... but I wonder if they changed it for a good reason, and that change would just happen again if they decided to go back? Seems like that might be an important detail to consider
2) Didn't AD&D popularize having a stable of characters to choose from, and the West Marches style of game where multiple each Player had multiple characters? Sure, it might not happen in every game like it did in the games I played, but it does still happen.
3) You don't see how changing the HP and damage so that a minotaur's charge could cause multiple broken bones, requiring months of healing, might cause an issue where a minotaur is the first challenge in the dungeon, and that means the party needs to retreat after the first encounter? And sure, adventuring should be dangerous... but at some point the Players are the experts, right? At some point they should be the ones who go and deal with the problem, and are equipped to handle it without immediately being punked by the monsters.

Yeah, so what if it is aggregate data? It is about people surviving falls, not other things (animals, or in the case of D&D "monsters").

It doesn't mean that any given PC doesn't need to (have a chance anyway) to die. The solution is to include rules for infinite damage potential, however unlikely, so there is always an element of risk. If a PC has 50+ hp and falls 30 feet (max 18 damage), they ABSOULTELY KNOW death is impossible--and the player knows it, too.

Right, how is knowing they will survive and that death is impossible a BAD THING? Yes, I'm aware that tripping over my own shoelaces could kill me in real life if I have bad luck, but that doesn't mean that players understanding their own capabilities is bad.

The only way I can see this as being bad, is if you want a 30ft fall to potentially be deadly regardless of level, which means a 10 ft fall as well, which I just don't get the reasoning behind, except "people IRL are super fragile"

And that's fine for you. I prefer to let the odds determine it, even if they are heavily skewed in one direction or the other. 10d10 damage for lava is pretty decent IMO, and since it is every turn, a PC falling off of a bridge into a lava stream and having to take more than one round to escape is probably dead anyway. You want to auto-kill them, go ahead.

Odds determine what? Lava would be difficult terrain (no rules state it is more than that) and you would take 10d10 damage. Max 100 damage. So if they are within 30 ft of an edge to get out, and have more than 100 hp, they will survive, guaranteed. There are no more odds to this than if someone could survive 3d6 falling damage.

Well, this pretty much indicates any discussion between us is fruitless. I despise this type of thinking. You might as well just give them the "We win" card and call it a day.

ROFLOL. Are you joking? Please tell me you are joking?

No, I do not need to give them a "We Win" card. Favoring them and not setting out to stack things against them is not the same as deciding they are not going to struggle or fight. But, if I have a situation where I think "Well, that is a good plan they came up with, it isn't what I had planned, and it doesn't fit these hidden details they don't know about.. but it is a good plan" then I might change those hidden details and let them execute a good plan. I work to encourage and reward them, not to brow beat them into submission.

The DM creates a fair game and rules should be consistent across the board. If a PC can auto-kill something while it sleeps, the PCs are fair game, too. So, I don't do auto-kill scenarios. The players have to make attack rolls, determine damage, and hope it is enough to reduce their targets to 0 hp and they don't cry out for help or sound an alarm.

The game exists for the DM as well. Without the DM the players can't play either. It is silly point to bring up IMO, arguing "the entire game exists for them and has no purpose without them."

Yeah, sure, the DM needs to have fun to. I have fun by making sure other people have fun. I have fun revealing things to players and seeing their faces light up. I have fun cackling menacingly and hamming it up for them, so they can feel excited when they beat the boss.

If I want a script where the hero dies because they didn't know about the lich's divination... I'd tell the group I'm cancelign the night and focusing on writing my book. Me having fun doesn't mean I need to allow instant death for my players, just because I allow them to instant kill. Just because a player might trap a necklace to explode to kill someone, doesn't mean I need to have exploding jewelry to sneak out to my player's characters, so they can explode too.

A good plan, well-executed, doesn't need to be burdened by additional rolls to "earn it" nor does it need for the players to fear that I will work to kill them. Because, again, the point is to challenge them. Not kill them. Character death is bad for me as the DM, it is a pain in the neck, causes all sorts of problems, and gives me NOTHING unless it was scripted with the help of the PC for a story beat. Just deciding "well, you guys slept in different rooms in the inn, and the assassin rolled higher than your passive perception -5, so you all died in the middle of the night, new campaign?" is not only pointless, but it is just being a jerk.

 

[Lanefan]

1) Sure, it could go back to how it was before they changed it... but I wonder if they changed it for a good reason, and that change would just happen again if they decided to go back?

It would try to happen again, because players by nature want the game to be easier. It would be on the designers to push back hard against that change happening.

Right, how is knowing they will survive and that death is impossible a BAD THING?

You're seriously asking this?

If I (and most players I've known) know nothing can kill my character, things are going to get degenerate in a real hurry.

No, I do not need to give them a "We Win" card. Favoring them and not setting out to stack things against them is not the same as deciding they are not going to struggle or fight. But, if I have a situation where I think "Well, that is a good plan they came up with, it isn't what I had planned, and it doesn't fit these hidden details they don't know about.. but it is a good plan" then I might change those hidden details and let them execute a good plan. I work to encourage and reward them, not to brow beat them into submission.

With the bolded, and even though your rationale isn't necessarily wrong, you outright gave them a "We Win" card.

If I want a script where the hero dies because they didn't know about the lich's divination... I'd tell the group I'm cancelign the night and focusing on writing my book. Me having fun doesn't mean I need to allow instant death for my players, just because I allow them to instant kill. Just because a player might trap a necklace to explode to kill someone, doesn't mean I need to have exploding jewelry to sneak out to my player's characters, so they can explode too.

The way I see it - and run it - if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander; and they know their own tactics and ideas can be turned against them by smart enemies.